Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Bank encourages second amendment and tells robbers beware. Customers inside are armed

Any would-be robbers looking to walk into the bank here had best think twice.

There’s a new sign in town.

About a month ago, Chappell Hill Bank president Edward Smith looked at a sign on the front door prohibiting concealed weapons from his business and decided to make a policy change.

Licensed to carry a handgun? Come on in, and bring your weapon.

*
The sign, now prominently displayed on the bank’s front door, says, “Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons.”

Smith said he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americans’ right to bear arms.

“We had the sign on the window, the red circle with the pistol inside and a line through it. And I started thinking, ‘We’ve got this no gun sign up and the guy (robber) can come in and do what he wants.

“But if you’ve got a policy allowing handguns, he won’t know how many people are going to be in here carrying a concealed weapon. There may be some little old lady who’s mad at the government, and she’d love to use it,” he said.

The bank has been robbed twice in the last three years, including last March when a Western-attired man walked in, ordered bank employees to fill a canvas bag with money and then fled in a pickup truck. The man, who did not brandish a weapon, has not been caught.

The sign has made Chappell Hill Bank and Smith somewhat of an Internet sensation.

A photo of the sign has made its way around the world, and Smith has even been interviewed for the National Rifle Association’s radio network (http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews). He’s also been contacted by other media outlets wanting to do stories.

“It’s kind of gotten a life of its own,” he said.

Expressions of support have far outnumbered criticism.

Smith been contacted by officials from larger banks considering to take similar action, and has received e-mails in support from across the United States and even from England, Canada and Germany.

“I haven’t gotten any from Chicago or California, which doesn’t surprise me,” Smith said with a laugh. “We did get a real nice e-mail from an 88-year-old World War II veteran who said it’s about time somebody stood up in this country.”

The NRA has even invited him to speak at an upcoming convention, but Smith said, “I’m still deciding on that.”

Smith said he’s only received one negative e-mail, from an anonymous sender.

The policy change has also brought Chappell Hill Bank a handful of new customers and comments from people outside Washington County that they’d bank there if they lived here, said Smith.

“I tell them that we’re a full-service bank and we’re on the Internet. They can bank online,” he said.

The Misunderstood Denied and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Bill of Rights is not intended to be an inclusive statement of our rights. All of our rights are to be equally protected under the Constitution, whether enumerated or not. The Constitution, in general, and Bill of Rights, in particular, are intended to be limitations upon the power of the federal government.

Point 3: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Inviolable Personal Right. It is clear from the words of the men who founded this country that the right to “keep and bear arms” is an inviolable personal right and that there are good reasons for it to exist and to be protected by the Second Amendment. This is not a subject for debate, except for those ignorant of our history or those that purposely wish to debase the American citizenry under the tyranny of government and ultimately into subjugation. Anyone who holds the position that the American people do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, or that it may be legislated away through gun control laws, is ignorant of the basis upon which this country was founded; including the means by which the founders intended for us to maintain our personal liberties.

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction” — St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

“That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… ” — Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book “Massachusetts,” Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87

“The great principle is that every man be armed…. everyone who is able may have a gun.” — Patrick Henry

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

I would like to point out in Mason’s article, he states two things is one sentence: 1. That The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and 2. the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights.

The rights are already there as the creators of the constitution believed, that they were granted by God, and should be rights to all people on the earth. But sadly, this is not the case by far. The Bill of Rights is to limitthe power of the federal government–created by the states to serve the states and its citizens.

If Citi does not want to support our troops then maybe we should not support them!

As the report below shows it seems Citi does not and will not allow business’ who handle military contracts to se their services. So we say we will no longer do business with them, until or unless they change. As such we have canceled our accounts with them. We told them why as well. If you support our troops you may want to do the same.


“Citi does not prohibit the financing of firearms purchases by individuals nor the financing of businesses that manufacture and sell them to individuals for recreational use. However, we do prohibit financing merchants in the non-ancillary military equipment industry, including the financing of businesses that manufacture and or sell firearms for military use.” That’s the statement from Elizabeth Fogarty, Citi Public Affairs, after Home Depot yanked credit from Oregon’s Warne Scope Mounts Company because of “the industry you’re in.” The big question: why? More to the point, I thought we’d already put this one to bed . . .

frfry Rotating Header Image If The Government Were To Declare Martial Law Would You Defend Your Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms?

If they were to declare martial law the gov would have the “right” to take away your weapons. Would you allow them or would you defend your freedom to bear arms? Once the gov takes your freedom to bear arms away they could take away any right that we have left because we wouldn’t be able to defend our rights. Also marshal law is supposed to be only temporary but if they were to declare it nationally they would probably think it would be a wonderful idea to make it permanent.

John Stossel Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

The myth of gun control is busted by John Stossel, buy, using the governments OWN statistics and number. A must see.

The UN anti gun treaty started being discussed on July 12 to end July 23. News from SAF

The Arms Trade Treaty Prep Committee began on July 12, 2010 and will conclude on July 23, 2010. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina is the Chair. On Friday, July 19, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representatives were told that the majority of the meetings would be closed to them. The critical discussions on the scope of the treaty will have no input from any non-governmental entity. Scope is critical in the Arms Trade Treaty process. In North America, some Pan Asian Countries and in some other parts of the world, the arms that we expect to have covered in this treaty are nuclear weapons. In much of Europe and most all of Africa, the delegates anticipate that the ATT will cover rifles, shotguns, handguns and ammunition as well.

There appears little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register all firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule, registration of all firearms and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals and many other restrictions. If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the U.S. Senate, this UN treaty would be the law. On October 30, 2009, UN members voted in favor of an ATT. The United States voted in favor of an ATT.

The UN has an aggressive schedule of meetings planned to push for these restrictions and we will be there representing you in every way we can. We will be at the CTOP/COP meeting in Vienna the week of October 18 and a General Assembly meeting at the end of October. In January, the five permanent members of the Security Council will meet and this is on the agenda. There will be another ATT Preparatory meeting at the end of February in New York. The regional UNIDIR meeting sponsored by the EU will start in March. We will come full circle with the Programme of Action Experts Meeting in May 2011 and the July 17-21 ATT Preparatory meeting that is expected to offer the final draft to the treaty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department Celebrates U.N. Gun Destruction Event

Gun owners hold onto your firearms. This may come to a city near you.


Today, the U.S. State Department announced its support for the United Nations’ “International Small Arms Destruction Day.” The State Department, under the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, calls this ridiculous event part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to support the “rule of law around the world” and boasts of spending more than $130 million to destroy “1.4 million small arms and light weapons.” A press release from the State Department says this money was spent at the behest of the anti-gun United Nations to reduce the impact of “illicit flows of small arms and light weapons.”

We win you loose dems Supreme Court rules in favor of citizens and gun owners in McDonald vrs. Chicago

We would like to thank the SAF for bringing this suit to the high court. Note it was not the NRA that did it.


Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of the Chicago handgun ban is “our call to action,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“This morning’s high court ruling clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States,” Gottlieb stated. “We are already preparing to challenge other highly-restrictive anti-gun laws across the country. Our objective is to win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

In striking down Chicago’s handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally-protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege, he added.

Gottlieb announced that in recognition of SAF’s victory, the organization will host the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in the Chicago area. The event will serve as SAF’s official celebration of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“By that time,” he said, “we should have some exciting news about other actions we are currently planning.”

The ruling marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008. This time around, Mr. Gura represented SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four Chicago residents. The case was McDonald v. City of Chicago, named for plaintiff Otis McDonald.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the City of Chicago,” added ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

“Thanks to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb observed, “average Chicago residents like Mr. McDonald will now enjoy the same right of self-defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor’s policies have been unable to accomplish.

“The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted to have worked with Alan Gura, who brought together the individual plaintiffs and organized this landmark case for us and our colleagues at ISRA,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today, it feels great to be the most effective community organizer Chicago has ever had.”

Supporters of gun control are RACISTS!

The historical racist roots of gun control by JPFO

We here at Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog first heard of this from Kenn Blanchard. The host of The Urban Shooter Podcast. Now the JPFO yhas done a video about it as well.

The liberal social engineers, and their political shills, have fed their lapdogs in the Mainstream Media the “gun control” party line. For generations it has poisoned the American consciousness.

Without the sophisticated brainwashing agenda of NBC, CBS, ABC, and the “educational” PBS, the socialist proponents of citizen disarmament would have long ago been crushed and defeated.

To aid in the goal of destroying “gun control”, JPFO has prepared three versions of a placard (and handbill) that are aimed directly at the soft underbelly of the media. These are purposely designed to be used at gun shows, Tea Party rallies, or any form of demonstration that seeks to send a hard core rebuttal to those who smear gun owners as racists.

During rallies, make sure you shove the placard in the face of everyone holding a camera. We never know when that image might turn up on the news or go viral. Go here for free pdf files of the placards and handbills –

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/freebies.htm#latest

Many print shops can expand these files up to size 18″ x 24″.

The goal? To bring millions of eyes and ears to the irrefutable historical facts presented in the landmark documentary made possible by JPFO supporters.

Go here to view a free download of “No Guns for Negroes” –

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm

Do your part today to destroy “gun control”.

Big mother government grabbing more power over the second amendment, business, and firearm rights

In a recent ruling regarding the “transfer” of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) has reversed policies that have been in place for more than 40 years.

In the ruling, BATFE declared that a temporary shipment of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a non-employee for business reasons (such as a manufacturer’s shipment to a gun writer or engineering consultant for a technical evaluation), will now be considered a “transfer” and require completion of a Form 4473 and background check.

This reverses a ruling issued in 1969, right after the passage of the Gun Control Act, although BATFE provided no explanation of the need for the change. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, BATFE hasn’t been able to name a single case in which a gun temporarily shipped under the old rule has been used in crime.

The short-term impact may be limited, because many major manufacturers already require firearms sent to non-employees to go through the transfer process. But manufacturers who didn’t follow that practice will now have to ship guns to licensed dealers to complete these “transfers.”

Furthermore, the ruling only applies to temporary shipments by federal firearms licensees to carry out those licensees’ business operations. Given that limitation, the new ruling won’t affect private individuals who ship guns to themselves when traveling to shoot or hunt, or who ship firearms to a manufacturer or gunsmith for repair or customization.

However, this new ruling may have broader implications for future issues. For example, some have suggested that although the ruling doesn’t relate directly to rental of guns for use on commercial shooting ranges, its reasoning might require rentals to be treated as “transfers” subject to recordkeeping and background check requirements.